Talk:Mystery of the Wax Museum

1953 coincidence

Is it just a coincidence that the remake House of Wax (1953 film) was made the same year that they thought the only remaining prints of this film were destroyed? 70.20.209.146 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know, but that statement definitely needs a (citation needed) tag. The Photoplayer 06:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Article need refs, badly. Luigibob 05:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Short story vs. three-act play?

This article states that the movie was "(b)ased on an unpublished short story entitled "The Wax Works" by Charles Spencer Belden." However, the article about its remake "House of Wax" (with Vincent Price) states that the movie is "based on Charles Belden's three-act play, The Wax Works." These statements appear to contradict each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.13.145 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem/conflict with edits to Mystery of the Wax Museum

On February 27, 2015 I made the following edits to Mystery of the Wax Museum:

• Within the infobox:

1) writer = Carl Erickson Don Mullaly → writer = Don Mullaly & Carl Erickson

‎Per on-screen order of names (Don Mullaly is above Carl Erickson) — there is also an on-screen ampersand between the two names — if the use of ampersands is discouraged, the ampersand may, of course, be deleted. Since Carl Erickson (screenwriter) has a Wikipedia entry, I added a link to his name.

2) based on = "The Wax Works" (unpublished short story) by Charles S. Belden → based on = the story by Charles S. Belden

The on-screen text states "based on = the story by Charles S. Belden". The short story title and its unpublished status are additional details which do not appear in the credits and should be sourced in the article, not within the infobox.

3) music = Cliff Hess → music = Vitaphone Orchestra conducted by Leo F. Forbstein

The sole on-screen muss credit states "Vitaphone Orchestra conducted by Leo F. Forbstein". If the Forbstein credit is unacceptable, then the music field should either indicate "no credit" or state "Cliff Hess (uncredited)". The name of Cliff Hess is unsourced and should be noted, if need be, in the article, not within the infobox.

4) editing = George J. Amy → editing = George Amy

The on-screen credit depicts "George Amy", not "George J. Amy". Since George Amy has a Wikipedia entry, I added a link to his name.

5) studio = Warner Bros. → studio = Warner Bros. & The Vitaphone Corp.

The on-screen text depicts: "Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. & The Vitaphone Corp. Present", but since Vitaphone Corp. was a sound system company, rather than a studio or a production company, which would apparently make it ineligible for the "studio" field, then the words "& The Vitaphone Corp. Present" may obviously be deleted.

• Within the main text:

6) aligning cast list into two rows

Frequently done on many cast lists — no perceptible detriment to the article

7) Thomas E. Jackson as Detective → Thomas Jackson as Detective

This actor has been billed as Thomas Jackson, Thomas E. Jackson, Tommy Jackson and Tom Jackson. His most frequent billing, as indicated by his listing in the American Film Institute Catalog has been "Thomas Jackson" and he is thus billed in Mystery of the Wax Museum. Since Thomas Jackson (actor) has a Wikipedia entry, I added a link to his name.

8) "A follow-up to Warner's 1932 horror success Doctor X, Mystery involved many of the same cast and crew, including actors Fay Wray, Lionel Atwill, Arthur Edmund Carewe" → "A follow-up to Warner's 1932 horror success Doctor X, Mystery involved many of the same cast and crew, including actors Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Arthur Edmund Carewe and Thomas Jackson"

Lionel Atwill is billed above Fay Wray and his name is depicted in larger fonts, thus I moved his name in front of Fay Wray's name. Since the two films shared four [not three] billed cast members, I added Thomas Jackson's name.

9) "William K. Everson reports that Warner's London exchange kept a 35mm color print on hand" → "William K. Everson reports that Warner's London exchange kept a 35mm color print on hand"

Since William K. Everson has a Wikipedia entry, I added a link to his name.

10) "After the death of Jack L. Warner on September 9, 1978, a print was discovered in his personal collection" → "After the death of Jack L. Warner on September 9, 1978, a print was discovered in his personal collection"

Since Jack L. Warner has a Wikipedia entry, I added a link to his name.

11) {reflist} → {reflist|2}

The four references would occupy two rows (with two lines of space), instead of four rows (with four lines) — frequently done — no perceptible detriment to the article

Twenty-three minutes after I saved the above edit, it was reverted with the edit summary, "no, not improvementsw" [sic]. Ninety-nine minutes following the revert, after another editor, whom I asked to examine my edit for any possible shortcomings, made a brief edit which questioned the presence in the infobox of uncredited producer Henry Blanke, the editor who reverted my entire edit returned with 13 additional edits, of which only four were related to my edit. 1) The aligning of the cast list into two rows was restored [point 6 on my list]. 2) The name of Thomas E. Jackson was linked, but was not restored to Thomas Jackson, as it appears in the credits [point 7 on my list]. 3) the name of Don Mullaly was placed above that of Carl Erickson, but Carl Erickson's name was still not linked [point 1 on my list]. 4) In the 12th of the 13 edits, the name of George J. Amy was linked and in the 13th edit, it was restored to George Amy, but unnecessarily piped to George J. Amy, ignoring that the name in the credits is George Amy, not George J. Amy [point 4 on my list]. The remaining seven points mentioned on my list above were ignored. All this from an editor who contends that changes within my edit were "no, not improvementsw" [sic]. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made the changes you indicated which accorded with the AFI entry and other sourced for the film. but some of your suggestion just make no sense and have not been done:

• An ampersand may or may not indicate a writing team, but I believe that's a Screenwriter's Guild rule that postdates this film by decades, so adding an ampersand is senseless - and it also something that we generally do not do
• The title of the story is listed as per TCM
• We do not list music directors or orchestras, only composers and songwriters
• The cast list is in two rows, have you not looked at the article?
• Dividing reference with this small number of them is a silly idea.
• The article on Thomas Jackson is not located at "Thomas Jackson (actor)", it's located at Thomas E. Jackson
• THe number of minutes between your edit and mine is totally irrelevant, since it depends on coincidences such as who is online at the moment. You have no guarantee that your edit will stay for any particualr amount of time before it gets edited or reverted.

Your edits were a mixture of helpful and unhelpful, whch is why I deleted them,. Rather then simply bring it here to talk about, you chose instead to leave a comment on the talk page of an editor I was in a dispute with, asking them to look into the article, even though he's never edited here before. That was an obvious attempt to WP:CANVASS help, rather than follow WP:BRD. If you had come here and made the arguments above, we could have reached a compromise in minutes. I understand now why your behavior just got you topic banned from edited dab pages on AN/I. [1] Please make more of an effort to understand how things are done here. BMK (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt reply and will address the points you raised one by one, using my points 1 through 11 above, to the extent that those correspond to your bulleted responses.

1) I already conceded on the use of the ampersand in my point 1 above, but you ignored the other issue in point 1, my linking of Carl Erickson (screenwriter), which you reverted.

2) My point 2 still stands: the sole information provided by the on-screen text is "from the story by Charles S. Belden", which is the exact same line used in the TCM entry. I could find no mention in James Steffen's TCM article [his name in the Wikipedia article cite is misspelled as "Stffen, James"] of either an "unpublished short story" or the title "The Wax Works", both of which you restored to the infobox. The TCM article is thus an inadequate source for both of these unsupported "details".

3) I also already conceded on Leo F. Forbstein in my point 3, but, as in point 1, you ignored my mention of the uncredited and unsourced Cliff Hess, whose name you restored.

4) I see that you have just adjusted George J. Amy to George Amy, thus eliminating that issue.

5) Mention of The Vitaphone Corp. is no longer an issue.

6) In the edit immediately preceding mine, the cast was in a single row. I arranged it into two rows, which you reverted [along with everything else]. Among the 13 edits which you made 99 minutes after the revert, you did, indeed, restore the two rows, which I mention in my bottom paragraph point 1 [above] as one of your four restorations of portions of my edit. Thus, in answer to your question, I have, indeed, looked at the article.

7) As I mentioned in my point 7, Thomas Jackson was intermittently billed as Thomas Jackson (actor), Tommy Jackson (actor), Tom Jackson (actor) and Thomas E. Jackson. Although I prefer the main title header as Thomas E. Jackson, thus avoiding the qualifier, the fact is that his most frequent billing was "Thomas Jackson" and he is thus billed in both Doctor X and Mystery of the Wax Museum (I linked [in my point 7 above] to his entry [as Thomas Jackson] at the American Film Institute Catalog). I had hoped that his original billing could be left intact, via redirect, similar to that of other actors who used more that one name form during their careers. Otherwise his entry would need to be moved from "Thomas E. Jackson" to "Thomas Jackson (actor)".

8) I changed the sentence "A follow-up to Warner's 1932 horror success Doctor X, Mystery involved many of the same cast and crew, including actors Fay Wray, Lionel Atwill, Arthur Edmund Carewe" to "A follow-up to Warner's 1932 horror success Doctor X, Mystery involved many of the same cast and crew, including actors Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Arthur Edmund Carewe and Thomas Jackson". Since Lionel Atwill is billed above Fay Wray and his name is depicted in larger fonts, I moved his name in front of Fay Wray's name. Also, since the two films shared four [not three] billed cast members, I added Thomas Jackson's name. Having reverted my edit, you ignored this point entirely in your reply.

9) I see that in addition to adjusting George Amy, you just linked William K. Everson, thus eliminating that issue.

10) I see that in addition to adjusting George Amy and linking William K. Everson, you just linked Jack L. Warner, thus eliminating all three of those issues.

11) As I indicated in my point 11, "The four references would occupy two rows (with two lines of space), instead of four rows (with four lines)". However, since you consider it "a silly idea", I concede the issue.

Thus, the remaining unresolved points are 1), 2), 3), 7) and 8).

Finally, to your points regarding editor behavior. I admit to feeling somewhat mistreated following your "vandal revert" of my edits, accompanied by the brusque edit summary, and waited for you to either contact me on my talk page, as you did before, or to restore those edits of mine which were clearly and obviously appropriate. At 23:33 (UTC), 1 hour and 12 minutes after your edit, not having seen you attend to either of those presumed tasks and, being aware of your disagreement with another longtime editor of film articles, I did indeed decide to contact said editor for what I considered to be a consultation, rather than a solicitation (there are few Wikipedians with a decade of experience in editing film articles), so that I might receive a (possibly favorable) evaluation of my reverted edit. However, as you can see from yesterday's exchange at User talk:Roman Spinner#Mystery of the Wax Museum, I was so circumspect in my posting and in providing a link to my Mystery of the Wax Museum edit, rather than the link of your reversal of it, that it all came to naught.

At 23:47 (UTC), 14 minutes after my posting, I received a very pleasant, polite and helpful reply which indicated solely a glance at my edit, without clicking to the next edit (your wholesale reversal). I had hoped that your reversal would be discovered naturally, without my having to point to it, but that did not occur. Feeling at least an obligation to offer an explanation of my original posting, I replied on my talk page, providing more detail, including a mention of some of the same points I raised above, and even providing a link to your reversal of my edit, but it was all too little and too late and my reply received no further reaction.

One unforeseen side effect of that exchange was that, one minute later, at 23:48 (UTC), the editor did make an unsolicited visit to the Mystery of the Wax Museum article and appended one very small edit, regarding citation for uncredited producer Henry Blanke, a name which was not part of my (reverted) edit. Within 12 minutes, between 00:00 (UTC) and 00:39 (UTC), spotting that brief edit and tracing it to my intervention, you returned to "Mystery of the Wax Museum" and made 13 edits, only three of which (as I mentioned in my last paragraph above) partially addressed the issues which I raised.

In retrospect, as you point out, it would have been preferable to post here without contacting the editor with whom you were/are in dispute. At the time, I had hoped to eventually convert the initial consultation into a possible subsequent exchange of views about your editing behavior, but realized, after the first contact and response, that such a line of thought had no reasonable potential.

After further thought, my next decision was to present the details of this case on this talk page and then proceed to this (now closed) ANI where I intended to add my own complaint against you with words to the effect of: "having been banned a few days ago from editing disambiguation pages and their associated talk pages as a result of longtime submissions of dab page entries which were longer than acceptable to consensus (civility was not at issue), I am reluctant to join an ANI complaint (which I have never done before) about a fellow Wikipedian. However, since this discussion is specifically focused upon civility, or lack thereof, I feel it necessary to add my dismay at the attitude of User….etc, etc". I intended to provide a link to this Mystery of the Wax Museum talk page where the case would be laid out that an unexplained "vandal revert" of a longtime editor (10 years) who made perfectly reasonable and helpful edits was inimical to maintaining a positive working atmosphere, etc, etc.

Having received, however, your reply within 10 minutes of my posting, which means, taking into account the time it took to write your reply, that you replied virtually instantly, I abandoned any further thoughts of pursuing the matter. As you indicated, reasonable individuals can quickly arrive at reasonable compromises. Since some Wax Museum details still remain to be agreed upon/ironed out, I will end this (typically) overlong communication and await your reply. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:TLDNR. This is not a debating society, we're building an encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I am restoring all above-enumerated elements for which no specifically detailed objections have been articulated. Any such objections should be discussed on this page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you do that, you will be reverted, as you have no consensus to make those changes. I have made the edits I agree with, the others I do not agree with, and therefore you should seek the input of other editors. You cannot bore people you are in dispute with with wall-of-text explanations and then go ahead and do whatever the hell you want.

To sum up: Your edits were reverted, returning the page to the status quo ante, and after discussion some of them were restored. This is not carte blanche for you to restore the others.

Just to be absolutely clear I do not agree with the other edits you have proposed, therefore there is no consensus at this moment to restore them to the article. Do not do so without a consensus, such behavior patterns got you banned from editing DAB pages, and is just as likely to get you banned from editing altogether, should you show an inability to learn from your previous errors. BMK (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I will first reprint the statement I made on my talk page and, subsequently, add a few more words:

From User talk:Roman Spinner#Mystery of the Wax Museum: "No force is necessary. The consensus of all reasonable editors is already there, because none of my edits are matters of opinion or personal preference, but straight facts and corrections. The sole editor who insists on retaining all the errors, omissions, lack of links and all other inadequacies is yourself. I would more than welcome an ANI review. I have already explained in complete detail at Talk:Mystery of the Wax Museum all of the necessary corrections to be made within the article. It is you who is refusing to explain why you wish to retain the clearly incorrect and incomplete portions which I have completed and corrected. The corrections are so clearly indicated that I am truly astonished that you refuse to see them and discuss them."

We may ultimately have to consult other editors at ANI about this if you refuse to see reason. I don't like to point longtime editors in the direction of such links as WP:OWN or WP:I DON'T LIKE IT, because it feels as if I'm being impolite, however, if we wish to discuss civility, the example of your most recent ANI speaks volumes. Still, as an editor who wrote above, "If you had come here and made the arguments above, we could have reached a compromise in minutes", you seem to be unwilling to even look at my edits, much less discuss them, because if you did, you would see that every single one of them is beyond any controversy.

In addition to the ones enumerated above (points 1 through 11), I made three additional adjustments, 1) spelling error in the name of James Steffen, 2) changing the verb form for William K. Everson who died 20 years ago and 3) deleting one word per WP:EDITORIALIZING. As I already pointed out above, among my second set of points 1–11, only points 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 were/are still in contention. If there is anything within those points you would like to discuss, I would be more than willing to do so. As a final detail, I should point out that James Steffen's TCM article which is cited 7 times, does not support any of the claims at issue here. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Will you please stop writing as if you're doing a master's thesis - just state your points succinctly and keep the crap to a minimum. Stop using numbers as well, I'm not spending my life working on this article.

So, your points regarding the spelling of Steffens and the tense for Ericksen are quite reasonable, and I've put those in. Now, what is the "editorializing" word you want to delete, and please -- using bullet points, not numbers -- list the remaining five points of disagreement, in as few words as you can manage. BMK (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I also don't wish to spend any more time on this prolonged head butt, but since neither one of us is willing to retreat from our respective positions, let us see if there are any additional points of agreement. I must admit to being particularly frustrated by this matter's simplest aspects — for instance, why would there even be any question about such a basic thing as linking the names of Carl Erickson (screenwriter), George Amy, Thomas Jackson (actor), William K. Everson and Jack L. Warner? Yet, managing to have those links put in was like pulling teeth. I continue to be dumbfounded by your refusal to link the last remaining unlinked name (Erickson).
• Next, copy-pasted from my edit summary: "→‎Preservation: Oddly, no attention was paid at the time to the color print of Doctor X → No attention was paid at the time to the color print of Doctor X (per WP:EDITORIALIZING)" [deletion of one word, "Oddly"]
• Again from edit summary: "[in infobox] replacing unsourced "music = Cliff Hess" with "music = no credit") or, if you prefer, "music = Cliff Hess (uncredited) {cn|date=March 2016}"
• More from edit summary: "[in infobox] replacing unsourced "The Wax Works" (unpublished short story) by Charles S. Belden" with "story by Charles S. Belden" (the on-screen credit is "from the story by Charles S. Belden"). The TCM reference does not support the additional details and uses the same line, "based on a story by Charles S. Belden" [at the bottom of Steffen's article].
• Finally, the present sentence states, "A follow-up to Warner's 1932 horror success Doctor X, Mystery involved many of the same cast and crew, including actors Fay Wray, Lionel Atwill, Arthur Edmund Carewe; director Michael Curtiz; art director Anton Grot; and cameraman Ray Rennahan". My slightly enhanced/revised version reads, "A follow-up to Warner's 1932 horror success Doctor X, Mystery involved many of the same cast and crew, including actors Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Arthur Edmund Carewe and Thomas Jackson; director Michael Curtiz; art director Anton Grot; and cameraman Ray Rennahan". Which part of my version is objectionable? After all, Atwill was billed above Wray, and Jackson did receive on-screen billing in the credits of both films.
• Let's see if we can agree upon anything above and submit the remainder for consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fresh start

Let's do this: tell me, in a minimum number of words, and without reference to anything that has gone on before, what you think needs fixing in the article right now. BMK (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am seeking consensus to make the following edits to Mystery of the Wax Museum:

• Add link [in infobox]: Carl Erickson‎         →‎         Carl Erickson
• Revise [in infobox]: based on = "The Wax Works" (unpublished short story) by Charles S. Belden         →         based on = the story by Charles S. Belden

The only words on-screen are: "From the story by Charles S. Belden". The title "The Wax Works" and its unpublished status are unsourced and do not appear in the credits

• Revise [in infobox]: music = Cliff Hess         →         music = no credit         {or, if Project members prefer, music = Cliff Hess (uncredited) {cn|date=March 2016}.

The name "Cliff Hess" does not appear in the credits and is unsourced

• Revise: A follow-up to Warner's 1932 horror success Doctor X, Mystery involved many of the same cast and crew, including actors Fay Wray, Lionel Atwill, Arthur Edmund Carewe         →         A follow-up to Warner's 1932 horror success Doctor X, Mystery involved many of the same cast and crew, including actors Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Arthur Edmund Carewe and Thomas Jackson

Lionel Atwill was billed above Fay Wray, thus his name should come before hers, and Thomas Jackson was the fourth cast member to receive on-screen billing in the credits of both films

• Revise: Oddly, no attention was paid at the time to the color print of Doctor X‎         →‎         No attention was paid at the time to the color print of Doctor X

The word "Oddly" should be deleted per WP:EDITORIALIZING

—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Linked Erickson; sourced "The Wax Works"; marked Hess as uncredited; added JAckson & changed order; removed the sentence about "Doctor X", which is not relevant to this article. BMK (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Per your words, "we could have reached a compromise in minutes". Also, please accept my apology for my breach of etiquette at the start of this (now resolved) disagreement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs update for blu ray release

I've never edited a page and don't feel qualified, but the section on preservation needs an update. UCLA has undertaken a major restoration of this film, correcting color and damage and thus the film is available in HD, in very high quality. At the very least this should be acknowledged in the home media section.

source https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/blogs/archive-blog/2020/04/21/mystery-wax-museum-restored-qa-scott-macqueen

Scripts

Held here. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)